Allowed

Shakeel v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Jul 2021ABAIL/5749/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi, J. allowed CITATION INCOMPLETE: Shakeel's application for anticipatory bail in a case under Sections 409, 511 IPC at Dhaulana, Hapur. The Court rejected claims of target harassment, noted investigation was ongoing, and granted bail subject to strict conditions including bond amount, travel restrictions, and a 90-day investigation timeline.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties; investigation directed to conclude within 90 days.

Shakeel Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5749 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Shakeel Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Pandey,Satish Trivedi (Senior Adv.),Sheshadri Trivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

(1) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

(2) The instant application is being moved by the applicant namely, Shakeel invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending his arrest in connection with Case Crime no.04 of 2021, under Sections 409, 511 I.P.C. Police Station-Dhaulana, District-Hapur.

¶7

(3) From the record it is evident that the applicant has approached this Court after getting his anticipatory bail rejected on 11.02.2021 by the Sessions Judge, Hapur. A perusal of the order sheet shows that vide order dated 01.06.2021, the interest of the applicant was protected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court. On making an inquiry, learned A.G.A. submits that he has not filed any counter affidavit, however, apprised the Court that the investigation in the matter is still going on and charge sheet is yet to be submitted.

¶8

(4) Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P. , hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A. as per Section 438(3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.

¶9

(5) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has got no criminal antecedents and he has not undergone any imprisonment after conviction by any court of law in relation to any cognizable offence previously. An assurance was also advanced by learned counsel for the applicant on behalf of the applicant that he would render all requisite cooperation and assistance in the process of law and with the investigating agency and shall not create any hindrance to reach to its logical conclusion and shall not flee away from the course of justice.

¶10

(6) Learned counsel for the applicant has strenuously argued that the applicant has been made target just to besmirch his reputation and belittle him in the public estimate by the informant. Number of arguments were advanced by

¶11

learned counsel for the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the accusation made in the FIR against the applicants by the informant. Learned counsel for the applicants has also relied upon the judgements in the cases of Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273; Joginder Kumar vs State of U.P. and others (1994) 4 SCC 260 and Sanaul Haque vs State of U.P. and another, 2008 Cri. LJ 1998 , to buttress his contentions.

¶12

(7) In the case of Arnesh Kumar ( supra ) Hon'ble Apex Court has opined that the pith and core is that the police officer before arrest must put questions to himself, Why arrest?, Is it really required?, What purpose it will serve? What object it will achieve? If it is only after these questions are addressed and one or other conditions, as enumerated above, are satisfied, the power of arrest needs to be exercised. Before the arrest the police office should have a reason to believe on the basis of information and material that the accused has committed the offence. Apart from this, the police officer has to satisfy further that the arrest is necessary for one or more purposes envisaged in sub-clauses (a) to (e) to Clause-1 of Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶13

(8) In this backdrop of legal proposition, primary submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is a private contractor of M/s Chaudhary Constructions which would not fall within the definition of Government Servant as contemplated under section 409 IPC. The submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant carries weight. However, it is further submitted that in the alleged inquiry by the C.D.O. Hapur, dated 06.01.2021, he was not given any opportunity to explain his version. The applicant is anticipating his arrest.

¶14

(9) Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application by mentioning that though the applicant has got no criminal antecedents but there is nothing on record to satisfy that the police personnel are after the applicant to arrest him. The alleged apprehension on behalf of applicant is imaginary and unfounded one. Learned A.G.A. has also submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made in the F.I.R., the applicant is not entitled for any relaxation from this Court.

¶15

(10) After considering the record of the case as available before the Court, in the light of rival submissions made at the Bar and keeping in view the nature and gravity of the accusation, antecedents of the applicant, his undertaking to make himself available to the authorities whenever required, the Court feels satisfied that it would be expedient to grant an order of anticipatory bail in favour of the applicant. Thus, instant Anticipatory Bail stands ALLOWED.

¶16

(11) Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may be adversely affect the investigation and subsequent stage of the case, the Court directs that in the event of arrest of the applicants in aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer with the conditions that :

¶17

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for the interrogation by the police

¶18

as and when required. The Investigating Officer of the case would give 48 hours prior notice or telephonically inform the concerned accused-applicant to remain available to him for the purposes of interrogation and the accused-applicant is obliged to abide by such directions.

¶19

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threats or comments to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the correct facts to the court or to the police officer.

¶20

(iii) The Investigating Officer of the case would make all necessary endeavour to gear up the investigation in utmost transparent and professional way and would try to conclude the same within a maximum period of 90 days. During this period the accused-applicant would not leave the State of Uttar Pradesh without informing the Investigating Officer of the case and sharing his contact number.

¶21

(iv) In the event the applicant are having their passports, they will have to surrender the same before the concerned SP/SSP of the District till the submission of report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C.

¶22

(12) In the event, the applicant breaches or attempts to breach any of the aforesaid conditions or wilfully violate above conditions or abstains himself from the investigation, it would be open for the Investigating Officer or the concerned authority to apply before the court of Session for cancellation of bail and the Court of Session has every liberty and freedom to revoke the anticipatory bail after recording the reasons for the same.

¶23

(13) It is expected from the concerned Investigating Officer to gear up the investigation and conclude the same as early as possible preferably in the month of August, 2021 itself.

¶24

Order Date :- 20.7.2021 Sumit S

Shakeel v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakeel v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Monish Pasha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Mithlesh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Virender Vs State of U.P.

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Neeraj Nishad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Harish Chandra Maurya Vs State of U.P. and Another